vault_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of telling an agent what the tool does. 'Describe' strongly implies read-only behavior, and the description helpfully notes the taxonomy is data in .secondbrain/config.json rather than code. However, it does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, does not mention performance, or clarify how 'method' is derived. The config location is a useful disclosure, but some behavioral traits are left implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description contains only two sentences: the first defines exactly what the tool returns, the second gives usage guidance and a crucial data-source architectural note. Every sentence earns its place, and the guidance is front-loaded before the caveat. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The scenario is a zero-parameter read-only info tool with no output schema. The description is complete enough: it states what will be returned, when to call it, and where the taxonomy lives. It could add that the call is non-mutating, but that is reasonably inferable from 'describe' and from the strong usage direction, so this counts as a minor omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed. Per the rubric, a zero-param tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description gives enough via the output content to keep it at that level.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('the vault') and enumerates distinct outputs: root path, folder taxonomy, note counts, method. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like vault_health, which likely focuses on health checks, and from note/crud tools that operate on notes rather than vault structure.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first in a session so you know the structure you are writing into.' This tells the agent to invoke it before mutations show up. It does not name any alternative tool, but none of the siblings serve the same purpose, so the lack of explicit exclusions is not a significant gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.